1.Where do we already have really good information from people on our team (for example, if Wisconsin were on the list, can’t we get a lot of information from Bob?) Who else knows a lot about some of these states. (Linda and Iowa??)

+

+

1. Where do we already have really good information from people on our team (for example, if Wisconsin were on the list, can’t we get a lot of information from Bob?) Who else knows a lot about some of these states. (Linda and Iowa??)

2. Should we go to the states where the Interent 2006 did case studies? Have these states been interviewed enough?

2. Should we go to the states where the Interent 2006 did case studies? Have these states been interviewed enough?

Revision as of 10:56, 10 January 2007

Rick and all,
I’m sending this by email because I haven’t figured out the wiki yet and I really like push technology. This will magically appear as an attachment to an email in your inbox. These are mainly preliminary thoughts as we enter ALA Midwinter. I would really appreciate your thoughts. I need to get in touch with COSLA pretty quickly about the focus groups. We do not need to decide yet which states we might want to visit but we need to start thinking about how we will choose those states.

COSLA Meeting
Rick, I told them we would only take 5 – 10 minutes. I think we should give them an overview of the project as a whole and you should do this. Then you or I can give a little more information on the telecommunication aspect including what we want to do in the focus groups on Sunday. I’ll also give people an opportunity to meet individually if they want. I have the most time on Sunday morning. If Carrie is along, you or she can give an overview of the e-rate aspect. Do we have a handout about the project that we can distribute? Even a one page with bullets would probably be helpful. I can work on one but I think you have a better handle on the overall picture.

I’ve been struggling with what to ask in the focus groups and it’s connected to which states we want to visit. We have the information from John Bertot. We have the information from the Davis/Ryan survey. How do we put this together to decide which states to visit for indepth information gathering? I was thinking of having the focus groups at ALA be pretty general and informal. The 2 main purposes of this focus group with state librarians is to a) give us information we might use in choosing the states to visit and writing the final report and b) get them interested in the project overall and receptive to any next steps.

These are the questions I’m thinking about asking. (Some may want to bring or send their state library IT people and that’s fine with me if it’s OK with you.)

1) What are the general problems and issues you face in getting high speed internet access to local public libraries?
2) How do you help libraries calculate how much high speed access they will need? Or how do they calculate this? Do you have a planning guide that helps local libraries make this decision?
3) How are libraries using high speed access or how do they want to use it if they had it or had more? What can’t they do that they want to do?
4) What role does e-rate plan in high speed internet access for public libraries?
5) What are the most successful methods that libraries have connected to high speed internet access in your state? (Type of connectivity; coalitions; unique configurations, etc.)
6) If we visited your state, who should we talk to (not names but titles)?
7) If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were going to try and help in this arena, what could they do?

I spent a good part of the day reading the 2006 Internet report. I read or skimmed all 259 pages. I’m concerned that we don’t ask what we already know and pondering how to take what they found and extend it further.

Once we decide on the questions, I would send them out in advance to the State Librarians so they can think about them. And then hand them out at ALA. Rick, can Kathy Mitchell take reservations for which focus group? I’ll send the invitation via Gary Nichols in Maine and the COSLA office.

Selecting States for Visiting
Assuming we still want to do the state visits and having studied the 2006 Internet report (by the way, did you realize that Arkansas is missing?) and the most recent Davis study, I still have questions about the best way to determine which states to visit.

Our preliminary criteria included the following:

Pick states where there were a high percentage of public libraries with significant high speed access (we did not define how high was high).

Pick state where there were a low percentage of public libraries with significant high speed access (again, we didn’t define how low was low)

For the high bandwidth states, interview telecommunications and government people and state library and practicing librarians about the connectivity:

how they got the bandwidth they got

how is the connectivity achieved

are they in a coalition, with whom

how much does it cost a month

how did they decide how much bandwidth they needed

what techniques did they use to convince whomever that they needed the bandwidth they got

For the low bandwidth states, interview the same people about the barriers they face in getting high speed bandwidth.

In looking at the data in the 2006 Internet survey that John B sent to us, I combined the lowest two columns (less that 56 kpbs and less than 128 kbps) to find the states with the lowest high speed connectivity. I also looked at which states had the least percent over 769 kbps. These two figures are shown below:

% less than 128 kbps

% more than 769 kbps

Alaska

27.3%

22%

Idaho

24.9%

37.8%

Iowa

15.1%

34.2%

Mississippi

39.7%

38%

Nevada

27.7%

67.2%

Vermont

26.9%

41.7%

Wyoming

14.9%

24.6%

I’m looking for those with the highest percentages in the first column and the lowest in the second. Based on this should we choose: Mississippi? Alaska (or do they have a unique set of problems and it’s not worth visiting)? Wyoming? Idaho?

I took the highest two columns (greater than 769 and 1.5 mbps) and came up with these states.

% >769 kbps

% > 1.5mbps

Florida

4.7%

83.6%

Georgia

6.5%

90.6%

Maryland

5.3%

88.4%

Ohio

3.2%

86.8%

Rhode Island

0%

82.9%

South Carolina

7.6%

78.7%

I’m looking for those with the lowest percentage in the first column and the highest in the second column.. Based on this data we could choose any of these.

Other factors that could be considered would be:

1. Where do we already have really good information from people on our team (for example, if Wisconsin were on the list, can’t we get a lot of information from Bob?) Who else knows a lot about some of these states. (Linda and Iowa??)

2. Should we go to the states where the Interent 2006 did case studies? Have these states been interviewed enough?

3. For the high connectivity states, do we want to go places where there is one statewide network or where there are many different configurations to get a broader spectrum of information?

Moving to the Davis/Ryan survey, we get a different perspective. We were deliberately vague in our definition so the data are very general. Those states with the lowest connectivity are Alaska (again), Idaho (also on my list) and Texas.

There is a very large number indicating over 90% connectivity. Mississippi is high on this list while low on the Internet 2006 survey. Duplicates on the two studies include Georgia, Maryland, Ohio, and Rhode Island.

Of particular interest on the Davis/Ryan survey were some of the comments. Based on the comments alone, I was intrigued by Oklahoma, Missouri, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and Texas.
I do wish we had included power companies in the list about how broadband connectivity is achieved.

Finally, John Windhausen put forth a paper for the Denver conference that was held in early September. It’s called Libraries Access to Broadband Services: Issues, Obstacles and Recommendations. He presents three models of high speed connectivity:
Government owned and operated
Commercially-owned monopoly regulated to the government
Free market
Where are these models in operation in the country and could they be used to choose the states?

So those are some thoughts. What criteria would the rest of you use? Suggestions for states and why?

Random thoughts
I’ve been reading furiously and talking to some telecommunication consultants and public library IT staff. Here are some random thoughts:

From the Colorado telecom consultant, Jerry McCarthy: he says that rural telcos can distribute capital costs and get e-rate subsidies over multiple years but no where does it say how to do this? Is this true?

He also says that proactive development is eligible under erate but people don’t know how to apply for it? Is this true?

He is also advocating for power companies to have access to erate if they are building fiber that will be used by eligible schools and libraries? Is this even possible?

Jerry has written a paper about his work getting high speed connectivity to northwest Colorado. I’ll send his whole message out but you will save time if you look only at his executive summary. Be sure and read his Success Factors on the last page which echo the findings of Bertot in the 2006 Internet report about what libraries can do to increase their effectivness.

I’ll quote a couple of paragraphs here to give you a flavor. The connectivity project is called the Beanpole Project.

A state official involved with Beanpole Project oversight indicated that the more successful projects generally had very strong community leadership with skills in bringing diverse groups together to further the project. When project leadership was handed over to start up companies looking to build their companies, projects didn't fare so well. Also, DOLA staff were generally deferential to local decision-making by the BP communities, even when they had doubts and concerns about the decisions. Any future effort should be more prescriptive, based on what has been learned from the more successful projects, he recommended.

Although it is difficult to compare individual community outcomes of the Northwest Beanpole project, one thing most managed to do was to add capability and value to their implementation areas. Four of the five successful implementations involved fiber optic infrastructure and the participation of an electrical or other utility provider or local government.

Due in part to the stimulus of the Beanpole Project and the CSP related investments in the region, there has been an estimated $15 - $18 million capital investment in telecommunications infrastructure upgrades [in the region] More than two thirds of this investment may not have happened without the stimulus of the Beanpole Project grant.

I wonder if there are a lot of other reports from other states that articulate success and failure factors.

Jerry also observed that high bandwidth just brings in more customers who want more bandwidth!

I also very much liked the report by Bertot and McClure called Assessing Sufficiency and Quality of Bandwidth for Public Libraries. I think they do a really good job of articulating why no one standard of bandwidth would be appropriate. It all depends on what the library really needs to do whatever it wants. To me this calls for a method for local public libraries to audit their current use and determine what their need will be over the next few years. I’ve seen planning guides but none that seem to get to the nitty gritty of exactly how much bandwidth is necessary and linking that to library technology goals. Bertot and McClure seem to start on this project but it could be expanded into a real audit that could be practically used in planning. There seems to be some of this in the checklist in the Internet 2006 report on what makes a successful connected library. Should this planning be different for libraries that feel they already have sufficient bandwidth and those that do not?

I also found the previously mentioned Windhausen paper Libraries’ Access to Broadband Services to be very helpful, particularly that libraries really now need 5-10 mbps and will need 100 mpbs in the future.

That’s all for now. I’m anxious for our team to have a chance to talk more about all of these issues.